Chances are if you are reading this blog post then you are interested in apologetics at some level. Also, it could be that you consider yourself an apologist and love to teach this stuff. But we have all run into THE PROBLEM!!! That is, the local church doesn't share our same passion for Apologetics and even looks at it with disdain. The leaders are skeptical, or even hostile, to the idea of having it taught at church. At this point we are lost at what to do next.

I am a Preacher by profession and an Apologist by hobby. I have been successful at getting apologetics accepted into multiple churches and I teach it on a regular basis at Severn Christian Church (Severn, MD) where I preach. So I want to give you a few tips from a Church Leadership perspective on how to get the church to accept their need for apologetics.

Become A Servant--Jesus said we needed to become servants of all (Mark 9:35) if we want to be first. I cannot stress this enough. Teaching is a privilege not a right. I want to see that you have been actively engaged in our other classes before you decide you want to teach your own. The Church is not an outpost for you to build YOUR ministry. That is a selfish mindset. If there is one thing that gets on my nerves it is the person who doesn't show up to any church Bible study but then wants everyone to come to his event. Reality Check...you and I are not the Savior of the Body. I am the Preacher of a church that averages around 300 people but I still sit in Sunday School class because I learn from our teachers. When it is my turn to teach I believe they have more respect to learn from me because I have learned from them.

Become an Active Member--As a church leader I don't care if a guy wants to come in and teach theology. If I don't know him as an active member then I will always be skeptical of him. Why is this guy here? What motives does he have? Remember the church leaders are there to guard the flocks from wolves so don't get mad at them. If, on the other hand, I see that you have been engaged in other classes and serving behind the scenes then I will know your motives are pure. Also, when people continually see your face then they get to know you. If they get to know you then they are more willing to come to your class.

Build Relationships--The old axiom is true; People won't care how much you know until they know how much you care. The Church is not the same thing as the College. We all aspire to be a Bill Craig or Gary Habermas. But people in the church don't always need or want syllogisms. They need others to help them bear their burdens (Gal 6:2). If you are only there to teach a class and go home then you might as well just go straight home. Apologetics are only useful to help people accept the Word of God so that the Word can do it's work in their hears (Heb 4:12; Rom 10:17). People won't want to hear your syllogisms until they hear you pray for them first.

Be Humble--As apologists our engines run on the fuel of cold hard facts and we have the knowledge to burn some tires. With this mindset we are easy victims for the sin of pride. Sometimes the lines between confidence and arrogance get blurry. Are we really that arrogant to think we are that important? We see our names on a list of Sunday School teachers or Small Group leaders and think everyone needs to be in our class because we are the best!! We might be the best but NOBOBY wants to be taught by an arrogant snob. Therefore, guard yourselves.

Be Patient--Yes we would all love to walk into a church and start teaching our class on the Teleological Argument or the Minimal Facts Case for the Resurrection. But lets get real. No organization works like this. Everyone must pay their dues. Jesus said we need to be faithful with a little if we want to be responsible of much (Lk 19:17). You have to give it some time for people to get to know you. You also have the give the leaders some time to warm up to your idea. One of the best principles I have learned as a leader is that TIMING is sometimes more important than what you are doing. Let us realize as apologists we might be a few years ahead of the curve. We need to approach it as low pressure constantly applied rather than come in guns blazing.

Establish the Need First--As much as I looooooooooooove to teach apologetics I also need to be sensitive to the need. It is not wrong for a person skip all the apologetics arguments and believe directly upon Jesus based on the Scriptures. God has set eternity and a moral law code on our hearts to point to Him (Ecc 3:11; Romans 2:14-16). If you are in a smaller church, made up of mostly elderly people in the country, then chances are they won't see the need for apologetics because there isn't one. At this point praise God, don't get discouraged. I love meeting people who already accept the Bible and want to worship God because that is who God is looking for (John 4:23). Be happy and move on until you find a place that does need it.

Approach the Leaders--After you establish the need you must approach the leaders before you start anything formal. If you want to crush your goals before you get started then just start your own thing without approaching the leaders. Remember it is their job to protect the flock. All leaders are not evil and stupid simply because they disagree with your assessments. Maybe we are the ones wrong sometimes!!! If you approach them you automatically gain respect because you show a willingness to submit to their authority (Heb 13:17). Give them a chance to feel you out and understand your position on the major areas. This will make them a lot more comfortable to support your class. If you have done the previous steps then you will have a greater likelihood of success when you reach this point.

Explain how it fits into the mission of the local church--All organizations, including the church, needs a vision. At Severn Christian Church our mission statement is, "Equipping Saints to Make Disciples". Our 5 year goal is to pay off our debt and begin church planting. I was able to perfectly weave apologetics into the church's mission which gave the leaders every reason to accept it. I explained the diversity of our congregation culturally and in age. I showed how our people want to evangelize but they are intimidated by the questions of the skeptical world. Then I gave them a brief sample of how an apologetics class can help Equip them (notice I used the key word) to Make Disciples (key words again) by being able to more effectively evangelize. If they evangelize more then we have a greater chance of growing numerically. If we grow numerically we can fulfill our mission of church planting.

Be willing to accept a no--How does this help us teach a class? Because it shows maturity and respect. As a leader I am a lot more willing to work with someone I know is able to lay aside their personal convictions in order to achieve what the collective leadership has decided is best for the church. If, as apologists, we accept a No at first then we can be patient, continue to build report, and maybe one day the No will turn into a Yes.

Pray--I hate to sound cliche but oh well, yea I said it. We often forget the ability of God to turn the hearts and minds of people. Keep praying that God will help a congregation see the need for apologetics if they really need one. Never underestimate the power of our God to answer prayer.

If you want more specific guidance please feel free to contact me through social media or click my contact tab at the top of this page.

Have you ever been in a discussion with someone trying to prove your point but the other person can only seem to attack your character? This is one of the most frustrating things I encounter when discussing anything with anyone. I just want to talk about the issue, I don't care ho you or I personally feel about each other. Oftentimes when people cannot debate the points they switch to attacking the character. This is called the Ad Hominem Fallacy. Someone once said, "You can prove I'm the Devil's brother and you still haven't answered my argument."

One summer I was traveling for a Non-Profit organization to different camps and Christian events to promote them. I was at a week long youth seminar in Indiana at one point. For a certain session I had the job of running one of the video cameras. During the session they planned something which I thought clearly violated Scriptural teachings. It wasn't anything that would lead the people to hell but it was still wrong. So I asked to be relieved of my duties and left to sit quietly in the foyer. Evidently this was not kosher for the seminar president.

He met me out in the foyer and began to question me. So I was honest and respectfully explained to him the situation. He told me I was wrong. So we began to discuss theology. I turned him to the clear statements in Scripture which formed my opinion. He tried to say I was misinterpreting them but that was to no avail. It was clear his exegesis was wrong and he knew it. So next he asked me where I went to school. I told him it didn't matter. If the Bible says something it doesn't matter where I went to school. The man was attempting to show that I was wrong based on where I learned my theology. This would be an example of the genetic fallacy, which I promptly pointed out to him.

At this point he decided to attack my character. He began to call me young, ignorant, close-minded, and some other choice words. Notice the transition in the dialogue.

Attack the premise. If you fail then:

Attack the source of the premise (genetic fallacy). If you fail then:

Attack the person (ad hominem fallacy).

This is an age old technique used by those who cannot work with proper logic. The Apostle Paul faced this same problem. 2nd Corinthians 10:8-11 says, "For even if I boast somewhat further about our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be put to shame, for I do not wish to seem as if I would terrify you by my letters. For they say, "His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible." Let such a person consider this, that what we are in word by letters when absent, such persons we are also in deed when present."

Paul was a master logician. Thus, when his opponents in Corinth could not deal with his "terrifying letters" they attacked his person. They called his presence unimpressive. These men were train in rhetoric who compared themselves with each other (2nd Cor 12:12). That is, they didn't put as much weight on the argument as they did on the style of the argument. So they said Paul's rhetoric was contemptible, that is, they didn't like his preaching style. Therefore, they concluded, his arguments were not on par with theirs. Should we base the validity of an argument on the person's character or style? NO!!!

Yet there are a few exceptions where it is proper to attack a person's character in a debate.

Person running for Politician office

Character of an eye-witness

Hiring of a Preacher

In each of these situations common sense tells us it is proper to look at their character. For even if a preacher has the greatest logic in the western hemisphere it will not be wise to hire him if he is an adulterous man. We want to trust our politicians to do what is best for their constituents not what is expedient for their political gain. If a man/woman can be shown to have cheated in the past to gain power then we would not necessarily care what their stance is on foreign relations. When lawyers cross-examine a witness in the courtroom one of their techniques is to discredit the eye-witness. For the person might be telling the truth but if it can be shown they are a proven liar then who is going to believe them?

What we have seen is that not all cases of attacking a person's character is the ad hominem fallacy. Yet, we cannot allow people to attack our character and act as if they have proven our point false. They key is to know when their is a necessary connection between the person's character and the soundness of their argument. If there is not one then bringing up their character is in vain.

Can you think of other situations when it is proper to attack a person's character to destroy their argument?

There is a new breed of atheists in town. They are led by the evangelists of the nothing Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens, and the like. These men sure are zealous to covert the world to worship the great nothing. But how is it that they can deny the plethora of evidence in favor of Christianity in order to lead their cause? They use tactics, which upon first glance seem like good shots but upon further reflection are shown to be fallacies.

One of their favorite tactics to use is Chronological Snobbery. This phrase was coined by the brilliant C.S. Lewis. I have always called it The Fallacy of the Calendar but I think I like his phrase better. You commit this fallacy when you try to destroy an idea merely by dating it. The key words that people use to defame an idea are Victorian, Medieval, Primitive, or Archaic. Let me give you a few examples:

David McAfee said, in Disproving Christianity, pg. 110, "The Bible may have been useful as a literary guide to morality at some point, but in a modern society in which rape, slavery, incest, and murder are no longer acceptable, it is an archaic book.”

Christopher Hitches said, in God is Not Great, "One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion…."

The logic (or lack thereof) being proclaimed is basically thing--Something is false because it is old and we can show you where it comes from. This is standard evolutionary thought. For in their worldview we have evolved up and increased in our learning. Therefore, by default the ideas we have today must be better than those of old. I am tempted to jump into the moral argument and ask where these atheists get their standard of morality so as to judge old ideas as worse than their own but I digress.

In a Biblical worldview we would say that each culture fluctuates with a natural ebb and flow but generally tends to go downward. Today America supports abortion and in days past they did not. Today America supports homosexual marriage and in days past they did not. The Bible would not call this better, it would call it an abomination.

The main point is to realize that truth or goodness is not decided by the calendar. C.S. Lewis was right, these people are snobs for living in the present as if their ideas are by default better than those in history. Does modernity guarantee your ideas validity? If that were true then in the 1940's Nazi Germany was a better idea than America's Declaration of Independence which stats "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Would Dawkins, if he lived in 1942, argue that America's ideals were archaic and we should all wear a swastika?

Should we always look down our noses at ancient cultures as if we are better than they in all areas? Of course not. We still can't even figure out how they built the Pyramids and they did that without modern computers or heavy machinery!!! One does not need to know about modern science in order to create the classics of Greek Literature, the soundness of Roman Law, or the architecture of the Pyramids. It is pure snobbery to believe that if you can date an idea you disprove it. It doesn't matter which age, culture, or person the idea comes from; truth is truth no matter what. It is amazing how these atheists will on one hand deny absolute truth yet on the other seem to affirm it in order to say the Bible is too medieval for us to use today!

I will leave you with this quote by G. K. Chesterton:“It is incomprehensible to me that any thinker can calmly call himself a modernist; he might as well call himself a Thursdayite…The real objection to modernism is simply that it is a form of snobbishness. It is an attempt to crush a rational opponent not by reason, but by some mystery of superiority, by hinting that one is specially up to date or particularly "in the know." To flaunt the fact that we have had all the last books from Germany is simply vulgar; like flaunting the fact that we have had all the last bonnets from Paris. To introduce into philosophical discussions a sneer at a creed's antiquity is like introducing a sneer at a lady's age. It is caddish because it is irrelevant. The pure modernist is merely a snob; he cannot bear to be a month behind the fashion.”

Has anyone every used this fallacy against you? Have you ever read it in a book?

Raise your hand if you want to be seen as judgmental. Any takers? Me neither.But how many times have you been shut down by this little slogan–“Who Are You To Judge?” After all, didn’t Jesus say “Do not judge so that you will not be judged?” Hmmmm….that does sound like something from the Bible…

Yes, Jesus did say that. But most people have misunderstood the point that Jesus was trying to make there.

And if you’re able to master the context of this oft quoted but frequently misapplied passage then you will be ready to help your friends and family think more clearly about important spiritual and moral truths. And every step towards the truth is a really big deal!

Move Over John 3:16…

Many people today may know John 3:16 is in the Bible and has something to do with Jesus, but Matthew 7:1 has surpassed it as the most quoted Bible verse in our increasingly secular culture.